Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPD-74-82 10 , 1,5. 1 CORPORATION OF THE TOWN OF NEWCASTLE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT HAMPTON, ONTARIO 1_013 1J0 TEL. (416)263-2231 REPORT TO THE GENERAL PURPOSE AND ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE MEETING OF MAY 3, 1982 REPORT NO. : PD-74-82 SUBJECT: ORDER TO COMPLY - TOWN OF NEWCASTLE SIGN BY-LAW - KIRBY GENERAL STORE PART OF LOT 25, CONC. 7 (CLARKE) OUR FILE: PLN 8.5(b) RECOMMENDATION: It is respectfully recommended that the General Purpose and Administration Committee recommend to Council the following: 1 . That Report PD-74-82 be received; and 2. That the request submitted by Messrs. William and Robert Reid for an exemption to the Town Sign By-law be denied; and * 3. That the attached By-law amending By-law 76-25 as amended, of The Corporation of the Town of Newcastle be approved; and * 4. That the attached By-law authorizing execution of an amending agreement between Messrs. William and Robert Reid and The Corporation of the Town of Newcastle be approved; and * 5. That the attached amending Agreement between Messrs. William and Robert Reid and The Corporation of the Town of Newcastle be approved for execution at such time as revised building elevations showing the proposed signs have been received and approved by the Town's Planning Department. l�`. \j Report No: PD-74-82 . . . ./2 �% 6. That Messrs. William and Robert Reid be advised that in consideration of the preparation of an amendment to their Site Plan Agreement to accomodate the proposed signs, they will be expected to reimburse the Municipality for reasonable administrative and legal fees associated with the registration of the amending agreement. BACKGROUND: On April 8th, 1982, Building Department staff approached the owners of the Kirby General Store in respect of signs which were in the process of being erected. The owners were unable to produce a Sign Permit, other than an M.T .C. Permit, and were advised verbally that they were violating the Town of Newcastle Sign By-law. At that point, only the sign frames and mounting brackets had been placed and the owners were further advised not to proceed with any additional work until staff had investigated the exact extent of non-compliance with the By-law. Over the course of the weekend following April 8th, work on two of the four signs was completed. On Tuesday April 13th, 1982, the owners were again verbally advised, by telephone, that not only had they erected signs without a Sign Permit, but the proposed signs contravened the By-law in respect of both size and number. On April 14th, 1982, a written order to comply was issued. Following therefrom, on April 16th, 1982, the Clerk ' s Office received a written request * (attached) for an exemption from the Sign By-law to permit the illegal signs to remain. At the date of writing, the balance of the four signs had been erected, notwithstanding the Town 's verbal notices and the written order to comply. Report No: PD-74-82 . . . ./3 sC�� COMMENTS: Staff have reviewed the request submitted by Messrs. William and Robert Reid. In that regard, we note that the subject signs contravene the Town's Sign By-law in respect of size and number, insofar as the Sign By-law would permit the Reids a maximum of two signs, having an area of seventy (70) square feet each. The Reids have erected a total of four (4) signs with a total area in excess of that permitted. We note here that the determination of whether or not the Reids have two or four signs is based upon an interpretation of the definition of "Sign - Wall ", which means that any sign which is painted on or permanently affixed to a wall or canopy of a structure, as well as the definition of "Sign Area", which includes the following: "For the purpose of this By-law, any double-faced sign shall be deemed to have one face only provided both faces are identifical , contiguous and parallel or diverging at an angle of not more than 15 degrees." In this instance, the signs erected on the building have faces containing different messages, are not parallel and diverge at an angle of more than 15 degrees. In addition to the foreging, the signs were erected without a permit, as required by the By-law. The existence of the Sign By-law has been well documented in the past through Notices posted in the Municipal Offices and published in local papers, in May of 1981 and February of this year. In fact, it is staffs ' position that the Reids were advised verbally of the Sign By-law's existence during the processing of their Site Plan Agreement, as is staffs' normal procedure. However, notwithstanding this, staff are satisfied that the Reids were not intentionally contravening the By-law when they first proceeded to erect the subject signs. The fact still remains, however, that they did complete the work on the signs, despite staffs' warnings and the written order to comply. Report No: PD-74-82 . . . ./4 In any event, in order to meet the By-law requirements, there are four options available. Firstly, the two signs located on the west wall of the building would have to be removed and a Sign Permit obtained for the remaining two signs. Secondly, if these signs were to be relocated to the south and north walls and placed in a position contiguous to the remaining signs, it would then be possible to comply with the present provisions of the Sign By-law, save and except sign area. However, Section 8, Subsection 2(b)(vi ) of the Sign By-law does provide for an exemption to the sign area of a wall sign, provided that such exemption is specified within an approved Site Plan Agreement entered into pursuant to By-law 79-151 . As the Committee is well aware, such an Agreement was entered into to facilitate relocation of the Kirby General Store to its present site. That Agreement, however, did not provide for an exemption to the Sign By-law in respect of wall signs. This course of action would involve the preparation of an amendment to the existing Site Plan Agreement and we suggest reimbursement for the Town's reasonable administrative and legal fees, would permit the Reids to retain the existing signs and at the same time ensure that the intent of the Sign By-law is maintained. Staff do not feel that this is an inappropriate solution to the situation, inasmuch as the Reids will not lose their capital investment, and the illegal signs will be brought into conformity with the Sign By-law. Thirdly, the Sign By-law may be amended to permit further exemptions in respect of signs where a site plan agreement has been or will be entered into. This option would permit the illegal signs to remain, as erected, but would also require an amendment to the Reids' Site Plan Agreement as in the second option. Again, we suggest that the Town be reimbursed for all reasonable administrative and legal fees associated with preparation and registration of such an Agreement. IV " !� Report No: PD-74-82 . . . ./5 The final option available would be to amend the Sign By-law to permit the requested exemption. Staff do not feel that such an amendment to the Sign By-law should be granted under the circumstances, inasmuch as this would establish a precedent for other property owners to follow and would eventually undermine the intent and purpose of the Sign By-law, preventing effective enforcement of same. In view of the foregoing, staff would suggest that option number 2, being relocation of two of the signs and an amendment to the Reids ' Site Plan Agreement, is the most appropriate solution, if the intent of the present Sign By-law is to be maintained. However, in view of the nature of the signs, the difficulty which relocating the signs could represent to the owners, vis a vis structural change or total redesign of the signs, and the fact that a Site Plan Agreement has been entered into which can be amended to permit a more discretionary review of signs as suggested by option number 3, Planning staff would have no difficulty in recommending the third option in an attempt to resolve the situation with minimal expense and inconvenience to both the property owners and the Town. On the assumption that the Committee will find staffs' suggestion acceptable, we have taken the liberty of preparing a draft amendment to the Reids ' Site Plan Agreement and the Town's Sign By-law for the Committee' s review. We would also suggest that a By-law authorizing execution of the agreement also be approved to facilitate early execution of the amending Agreement. Report No: PD-74-82 . . . .A We note, for the Committee's information, that the contents of this Report have been discussed with Mr. Robert Reid, who has verbally indicated his agreement. Respectfully submitted, T. T. Edwards, M.C.I.P. Director of Planning TTE*mjc April 23, 1982 Messrs. Wm. and R. Reid R.R. North ORONO, Ontario c�) CLOT ( LOT LOT 30 I 28 28 I i I I I I i LOT (I LOT 27 26 LOT 25 LO1 LOT LOT 24 I 23 I 22 I I I I I � I I i • I I I LOT ( LOT ( Lt 21 I 20 I i I I I I I c31 I � I I ' Ii I1 I I I I ► i I I I I I I l � I I i • 1 � I .I I . _.I , SUBJECT I I I 1 I I I SITE ( KIRBY �---------T-- I I f 1 I I I I I KEY MAP FORMER TOWNSHIP OF CLARKE 0 500 i000m 500 0 CLEit'i; U`IETART.,MENT _1/ 6 c1) R R North, Orono . April 14, 1982 Town of Newcastle Clerk 's Office, 40 Temperance St . , Dowmanville , Ontario . Attention: Mr . D. Oakes DISTR186fi0 CLC IK, Q ACK. BY: .,.,, ORIGINAL, TO: .......... {I COPIES TO: n . Dear Sir: FILE••.`••�•.• On behalf of Kirby Store Incorporated, we request a minor ••••••••� exemption from the sign by-law. We regret having to make this request, but through the process of relocation we do not recall being made aware of the need for a permit from the Town of Newcastle , nor of the existing by-law. We did receive approval from the Ministry of Transportation and Communication regarding our signs and we had hoped that through our site plan agreement we would have been made aware of all that was required of us by the Municipality. The dilema we now find ourselves in after having paid out approximately "5.000. 00 for the signs is that they violate the by-law in size . inhere are no other signs nearby and the signs in question do face highway 11; directly west of the store . These signs have electric lighting in them and they do help to light around the outside of the store for safety and security reasons . We would ask for you to give this favourable consideration so that we may continue as usual and we will be able to purchase your permit . RPR/br Yours truly, Messrs . William and Robert Reid i i THE CORPORATIQN OF THE TOWN OF NEWCASTLE E BY-LAW NUMBER 82- 64 1 being a By-law to amend By-law Number 76-25, as amended, of The r f Corporation of the Town of Newcastle. WHEREAS the Council of the Corporation of the Town of Newcastle deems it advisable to amend By-law 76-25, as amended, of The Corporation of the Town of Newcastle; NOW THEREFORE,' the Council of. the Corpora ion, of the Town of Newcastle enacts as follows: 1. Section 4 of By-law 76-25, as amended, pf The Corporation of the Town of Newcastle is hereby further amended by the addition of the following Subsection (13): 111(13) Site Plan Agreements i. Notwithstanding any provision of this By-law to the contrary, the provisions of this By-law relative to the sign area, number and' location of identification signs may be varied through specific inclusion within a site plan agreement entered into pursyant to By-law 79-151, as amended, of The Corporation of the Town of Newcastle. 2. This By-law shall come into effect on the date of the final passing hereof. BY-LAW read a first time this 10th day of May 1982 BY-LAW read a second time this 10th day of May 1982 BY-LAW read a third time and finally passed this 10th day of May 1982 G. B. RIC AR A D. W. OAKES, CLERK i k i F � d THE CORPORATION OF THE TOWN OF NEWCASTLE i BY-LAW NUMBER 82- 65 i being a By-law to authorize the entering into of an Agreement with William Reid and Robert Reid. The Council of the Corporation of the Town of Newcastle hereby enacts i as follows: 1. THAT the Mayor and Clerk are hereby authorized to execute on behalf of the Corporation of the Town of Newcastle, and seal with the Corporation's seal, an Agreement between William Reid and Robert Reid and the said Corporation dated the day of 1982, in the form attached hereto as Schedule 2. THAT Schedule "X" attached hereto forms part of this by-law. BY-LAW read a first time this 10th day of May 1982 BY-LAW read a second time this 10th day of May 1982 BY-LAW read a third time and finally passed this 10th day of May 1982 G. B. RICKARO, A OR D. W. OA ES, C ER i i I i i ' I i DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT made in quintuplicate this day of 1982 BETWEEN : WILLIAM REID and ROBERT REID, Hereinafter called the "OWNERS" OF THE FIRST PART - and - THE CORPORATION OF THE TOWN OF NEWCASTLE Hereinafter called the "TOWN" OF THE SECOND PART WHEREAS the Owners warrant that they are the registered owners of those lands described in Schedule "A" hereto and hereinafter referred to as the "said lands"; AND WHEREAS the Town has passed By-law 81-113 and the Owners and the Town have executed a Development Agreement which was duly executed and registered in the Registry Office for the Land Registry Division of Newcastle (No. 10) as Instrument Number 105363; AND WHEREAS the Council of the"Town 'of Newcastle has resolved to approve an amendment to the aforesaid Agreement; AND WHEREAS the parties thereto agree to amend the said Development Agreement; NOW THEREFORE in consideration of the mutual agreements and covenants and promises contained herein, the parties hereto agree as follows: 1. Paragraph 2 of the Development Agreement between the Town of Newcastle and William Reid and Robert Reid registered in the Registry Office for the Land Registry Division of Newcastle (No. 10) as Instrument Number 105363 is hereby amended by adding thereto the following: "The Owners further agree that no wall signs other than those shown on the building elevations forming part of Schedule "C" shall be erected on the said building." k 51 r; 2. Schedule "C" of the Development Agreement between the Town of Newcastle and William Reid and Robert Reid registered in the Registry Office for the Land Registry Division of Newcastle (No. 10) as Instrument Number 105363 is hereby amended by adding thereto revised building elevations forming Schedule "B" to this Agreement. IN WITNESS WHEREOF the parties have hereto affixed their hands and seals and/or corporate seals by the hands of their proper signing officers duly authorized in that behalf. SIGNED, SEALED AND DELIVERED ) In the presence of: ) WILLIAM RE.ID ROBERT RE THE CORPORATION OF THE TOWN OF NEWCASTLE MAYOR ER i THIS SCHEDULE IS SCHEDULE "A" to the Agreement which has been authorized and approved by By-law No. 82- of the Town of Newcastle, enacted and passed the day of 1982. LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF SAID LANDS ALL AND SINGULAR that certain parcel or tract of land and premises, situate, lying and being Part of Lot 25, Concession 7, former Township of Clarke, former County of Durham, now within the limits of the Town of Newcastle, in the Regional Municipality of Durham and designated as Part 3 according to a Reference Plan deposited at the Land Registry Office for the Registry Division of Newcastle (No. 10) as Plan IOR-1289. IN WITNESS WHEREOF the parties have hereto affixed their hands and seals and/or corporate seals, by the hands of their proper signing officers duly authorized in that behalf. SIGNED, SEALED AND DELIVERED ) In the Presence of: 1 WILLIAM REID- ROBERT REID THE CORPORATION OF THE TOWN OF NEWCASTLE MA CLERK I f i i I